SUMMARY: Bienvenido Ebarle, Governor of Zamboanga del Sur, sought injunctive relief in 2 separate petitions, to enjoin further proceedings in a series of criminal prosecutions filed by the Anti-Graft League for alleged violation of various provisions of the Anti-Graft Law and the RPC. Ebarle opines that the non-compliance of the procedures laid down byCRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015TUMANG VS. BAUTISTA (Presiding Judge of RTC) and JAVIER (privaterespondent)May 31, 1985 Abad Santos, J.SUMMARY: Private respondent Emilio Javier filed a sakdal, which was unaccompanied by an English translation, against Enrique Tumang and his daughter Georgia Tumang para Danyos Purhisyo. The petitioners filed a motion asking the Court to order the private respondent to file the sakdal in English and to attach a copy of the acquittal of Javier in the criminal complaint filed against him for Unjust Vexation. **Note: sakdal = complaint, according to Court.DOCTRINE: The complaint must be written in English, which is almost exclusively used, and not Filipino because the latter is still a gestating languageFACTS:Private respondent filed a sakdal para Danyos Purhisyo against Enrique Tumang and his daughter Georgia Tumang. The complaint was written in Pilipino and was unaccompanied by an English translation. The sakdal made reference to a case of Unjust Vexation where Javier was acquitted (it wasnt stated in the case but I think the complainants were the Tumangs, which is the reason for the present sakdal para danyos purhisyo but this is just my guess). Enrique Tumang and his daughter filed a motion for a bill of particulars asking for: a) an English translation of the Sakdal, b) copy of the complaint for unjust vexation and copy of the decision acquitting Javier, and c) any other document pertinent to the issue.RTC: Pilipino can be used. Copy of the complaint for unjust vexation is not necessary but Javier must provide the title and number of the case.ISSUES:1. WON it is necessary for the sakdal to be filed in EnglishRATIO:1. YES According to the Consitution, Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages (Art. XV, Sec. 3, par. 3). Although it is said that both English and Pilipino may be used, English is almost exclusively used because Pilipino is still a gestating language. The Batasang Pambansa still has to take steps towards the development and formal adoption of Pilipino as a common national language. However, the petitioner cannot raise this issue before the Court because it tacitly submitted to the RTCs ruling by failing to file an appealand analyzing the contents of the sakdal when it argued that the sakdal stated no cause of action,Ruling: Petition denied.EBARLE v. SUCALDITODecember 29, 1987 Sarmiento, J.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015E.O. 264 regarding complaints of irregularities against government officials is fatal to the criminal actions filed. He also argues that the Anti-Graft League has no standing in filing the complaints since it is not the offended party.DOCTRINE: E.O. 264 is not applicable in this case since it has exclusive application to administrative complaints, not criminal. As a general rule, a criminal action is commenced by complaint or information, both of which are filed in court. In case of a complaint, it must be filed by the offended party; with respect to an information, it is the fiscal who files it. But a complaint filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial action may be filed by any person.FACTS: The Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. filed a series of complaints against Bienvenido Ebarle, provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Sur and a candidate for reelection. The first series of complaints were filed by the Anti-Graft League alleging violations of the provisions of the Anti-Graft Law as well as various provisions of the RPC. These complaints are as follows:1. CRIM CASE 1-70: A complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft Law and Art 171, RPC alleging the manipulation of a bidding for the supply of gravel and sand for the Province of Zamboanga del Sur by falsifying and simulating the bidding papers to favor Tabiliran Trucking Company2. CRIM CASE 2-71: A complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft Law and Art 171, RPC alleging the manipulation of a bidding for the construction of the right wing portion of the Capitol Bidding by maliciously manipulating the results to favor Codeniera Construction, owned and managed by Ebarles spouses brother-in-law.3. I.S. NO. 4-71: A complaint for violation of Art. 182, 183, and 318, RPC alleging that Ebarle falsely testified under oath in a Cadastral Case for the registration of certain lot.4. I.S. NO. 5-71: A complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft Law and Art 171 and 213, RPC for illegally and irregularly awarding the contract for the supply of gravel and sand for the Province to Cesar Tabiliran, associate of Ebarle and by maliciously excluding Teoson Trucking Services from the bidding conducted despite compliance with all rules and requirements on public bidding.Ebarle moved to dismiss the preliminary investigations but was denied. He then went to CFI-Zamboanga del Sur, presided by Judge Sucaldito, on petition for prohibition and mandamus (docketed SPECIAL CASE NO. 1000) and praying for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin further proceedings. A restraining order was given. The Anti-Graft League moved to have the restraining order lifted and the petition dismissed. Judge Sucaldito found for Anti-Graft League and dismissed SPECIAL CASE NO. 1000.The Anti-Graft League filed yet another 3 complaints for violation of various provisions of the Anti-Graft Law and Art 171(4), RPC. Subsequently, I.S. NO. 6-71, and 7-71 were also filed for various violations of the Anti-Graft Law.Ebarle filed 2 petitions, consolidated by the Supreme Court, relying on the failure of the City Fiscal and the Anti-Graft League to comply with the provisions of E.O. 264 Outlining the Procedure by which Complainants Charging Government Officials and Employees with Commission of Irregularities Should Be Guided, preliminary to their criminal recourses.ISSUES:1. WON the non-compliance of E.O. 264 by the Anti-Graft League is fatal to the institution of the criminal actions. NO, it is not.2. WON the Anti-Graft League has standing to commence the series of prosecution. YES, even if it is not the offended partyRATIO:I. The non-compliance of the procedures in filing laid down by E.O. 264 is not fatal to the criminal actions commenced by Anti-Graft League since E.O. 264 is not applicable in the first place.A. From the plain wording of E.O. 264, it is clear that it is exclusively applied to administrative, not criminal complaints.B. The title itself speaks of irregularities and there is no mention of criminal offensesC. The procedure provided by law and regulations referred to by E.O. 264 pertains to existing procedural rules with respect to the presentation of administrative charges against government officials.D. From the language and the words used by the E.O., the intent of the measure clearly is not criminal. If it were, it would have employed technical terms such as accused, convicted, or acquitted.II. That the Anti-Graft League is not an offended party within the meaning of Rule 110 cannot abate the complaints in question.A. A complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the fiscal NEED NOT BE FILED by the offended party1. RULE: Unless the offense subject thereof is one that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, the same may be filed, for preliminary investigation purposes, by any competent person

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B20152. The complaint referred to in Rule 110 contemplates one filed in court, not with the fiscal, in that case, the proceeding must be started by the aggrieved party himself.B. GENERAL RULE: a criminal action is commenced by complaint or information, both of which are filed in court.1. In case of a COMPLAINT, it must be filed by the offended party2. In case of an INFORMATION, it is the fiscal who files ita. NOTE: But a COMPLAINT filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial action may be filed by any personDISPOSITIVE: Petitions are dismissed. Temporary restraining orders are lifted and set aside. Preliminary investigations can proceed.Del Rosario v. MercadoAugust 28, 1969 Fernando,JSUMMARY: Mercado was killed by the petitioners who are police officers. The complaint of murder was filed by Mercados wife. The petitioners are asserting that the complaint should be considered void as it was instituted not by the offended party.DOCTRINE: The widow of a murdered person has a right to file a complaint for murder as an offended party.FACTS:The petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus asserting that the complaint filed by the widow of the murder victim is void as it was not signed by the offended party. They argue that she being merely the heir of the offended party and not the offended party herself within the meaning of the above-cited provision of the Rules of Court has noright to file the action.There was a motion to intervene as well as an opposition to the petition filed on behalf of the widow, Juanita Olidar, maintaining her right to file the complaint and praying that the petition for habeas corpus be denied.CFI of La Union ruled in favour of the petitioners.ISSUES:Whether a widow may be considered an offended party within the meaning of the applicable Rules of Court provision, entitled to file a complaint for the murder of her deceased husband?RATIO:The court ruled that the wife may file such action as in offended party. To view it otherwise would be an affront to reason. That is precisely one instance where the unity that marks the relationship of husband and wife calls for the most emphatic affirmation. More specifically, in the case before us, the injury to the widow cannot be disputed. Her right to consortium was definitely put an end to. The loss of the material support to which she was entitled was equally evident. The suffering she had to endure then as the survivor of the tragedy was unavoidable even if time could thereafter be trusted to assuage the pain. It would show less than full regard then for the realities of the situation not to reconsider her an offended party within the meaning of the Rules of Court provision.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015A contrary holding, is likely to be attended with deplorable consequences, as in this case, where the accused is a member of the police force. Under such circumstance, reliance on the police force to file the complaint might in not a few instances prove futile. For one thing, a false sense of camaraderie may paralyze the hand of such officials.People v. BerialesApril 7, 1976 Concepcion JR., J.SUMMARY: Three men charged with murder, were arraigned, tried and convicted without the presence of the Fiscal or his representatives.DOCTRINE: Though the Fiscal may turn over the active conduct of a trial to a private prosecutor, his duty to direct and control the prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be present during the proceedings.FACTS: Ricardo Beriales, Benedicto Custodio, Pablito Custodio charged before the CFI-Leyte of murdering Saturnina Porcadilla November 26, 1974: Appellants moved for a reinvestigation of the case by the Fiscal- court approves reinvestigation Arraignment and trial moved to December 5 and 6 then postponed by the Fiscal to December 17 and 18 to finish his reinvestigation The trial court, however, relying on the mandate that "All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases, resumed hearing the case on December 10 (the hearing went on up to December 13 when appellants were convicted) Special Counsel Rosario R. Polines, in representation of the Fiscal, manifested that the private prosecutor, Atty. Procadilla, be authorized to conduct the case for the prosecution for the December 13 hearing The appellants challenged the resumption of the hearing without finishing the reinvestigation first When arraigned, the three appellants declined to plead, saying: "I am not going to answer the question because the Fiscal is not yet around." Thereupon, the trial court entered a plea of "Not Guilty" for each of them appellants' counsel again manifested that the Fiscal was absent and that they could not go to trial without the fiscal and his report on the reinvestigation conducted by him however, the trial continued and appellants were convicted appellants interposed appeal on the grounds of denial of due processISSUES:1. WON the absence of the Fiscal/ Fiscals representative on December 13 was denial of due process? YES2. WON the lower court should have waited for the results of the reinvestigation? YESRATIO:1. What is deplorable and which renders patently irregular all the proceedings taken in this case, was the total absence of the Fiscal and any of his assistants or special counsel on December 13, when the appellants were arraigned and when the private prosecutor presented evidence and rested the case supposedly for the People. While there is nothing in the rule of practice and procedure in criminal cases which denies the right of the Fiscal, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to turn over the active conduct of the trial to a private prosecutor, his duty to direct and control the prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be present during the proceedings.2. After the trial court granted the motion for reinvestigation, it became incumbent upon the court to delay the trial until it has been conducted. It was a matter of duty on the part of the TC, not only to be consistent with its own order, but also to avoid a possible miscarriage of justice given that the offense charged is murder.Decision appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the lower courts for another arraignment and trial.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015REPUBLIC VS. SUNGAJune 20, 1988 Padilla, J.SUMMARY: Petition for review on certiorari filed by the provincial fiscal seeking clarification on whether or not a criminal case can be dismissed by the trial court on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party but without motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal. Court held that while the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case should be dismissed, the fiscals view on the matter should be heard by said court first before making such decision of dismissal.DOCTRINE: Court held that while the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case should be dismissed, the fiscals view on the matter should be heard by said court first before making such decision of dismissalFACTS:- August 10, 1964: information for attempted homicide was filed by fiscal of Camarines sur against accused-private respondents Rafael, Ariston and Jose all surnamed Anadilla.- March 11, 1974: hearing was set but was postponed because Rafael Anadilla was absent (he wasnt arrested yet by police).Court a quo issued an order of arrest for Rafael and also set the trial of the case for 29 and 30 July 1974-March 20, 1974: court a quo issued assailed order which contains the ff. points: The offended party is no longer interested in further prosecution of the case The case is dimissed- The affidavit of desistance filed by offended party stated that he was no longer interested in the prosecution of the case, he has already forgiven the accused and that his material witnesses could no longer be contacted-Provincial fiscal moved to reconsider the order of dismissal but was denied. Hence this petition.ISSUE: WON the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party, but without a motion todismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal RATIO:- Yes but court should always ask the opinion of the fiscal first.-In Crespo v. Mogul, it was held that the rule is that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests in the sound

discretion of the court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in court, he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.-In the case at bar, it took 10 years from the filing of the information for the trial to begin. Hence the disposition of the complainant is not unusual.Despite this, the fact that the fiscal opposed said dismissal of the case seems to imply that he believe that despite such manifestation of the complaint, he could prove the prosecutions case.- Through crespo doctrine still is true (trial court is sole judge on whether a crim case should be dismissed), any move on the part of complainant to dismiss the criminal case, even without the objection of the accused, should first be referred to the prosecuting fiscal for his own view on the matter. It is only after hearing the prosecuting fiscals view that the court should exercise its exclusive authority to continue or dismiss the caseHELD: petition dismissed

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015Ingco v. SandiganbayanMay 23, 1997 Vitug, JSUMMARY: A man accused of graft and corruption as a Sr VP for PNB claims that since the information alleged against him was not filed in the proper court before the ten-year prescription period, liability for such wrongdoing has prescribed.DOCTRINE: Filing an information for preliminary investigation, even in a Court or Office with no proper jurisdiction of the crime alleged, suspends the prescription period.FACTS: PNB alleged that Domingo Ingco, as Sr. VP for PNB, had favorably recommended the approval of the application for loan of Cresta Monte Shipping Corporation in the amount of US $5.91 million and US $7.5 million, notwithstanding that: [a] Cresta Monte had a capitalization of only P1 million; [b] no project feasibility study was conducted; [c] the PNB Credit Department submitted an adverse comment; and [d] the collaterals for the loans were deficient. With regard to the other petitioners, Ernesto Magboo and Herminio Alcasid, the information alleged that their joint and several signatures and those of their spouses, in violation of the terms and conditions of the loan, were not given. This, they claimed, was in contrary to RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.Ingco, et al, filed a motion to quash, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan, hence this appeal for certiorari.ISSUES:1. WON the offense has already prescribed. - NO2. WON the facts charged in the info constituted an offense. - NORATIO:1. The offense has not yet prescribed because regardless that the offense allegedly happened in September 1977 and/or March 1978, and the filing under the Sandiganbayan happened only in July 1993, the prescriptive period was suspended when a case was filed with the Ombudsman in May 1987.People v. Taico, People v. del Rosario and People v. Coquia states that only filing in the proper court suspends the prescriptive period, but People v. Olarte (1967) has cleared that filing even with the justice of peace for preliminary investigation purposes suspends the prescriptive period. In Francisco v. CA, SC held that filing even in the Fiscals Office defers prescription.2. Ingco only acted as an assessor of the application for loans, and his endorsement for the approval of Cresta Montes despite the lack of requirements of its owner/managers does not constitute a crime under RA 3019. It could have been merely a mistake on Ingcos part. Furthermore, it is not Ingco who approves, but the Board itself, and thus no damage could have resulted from Ingcos positive evaluation of Cresta Montes assets. Ingco is cleared of the crime. As for Magboo and Alcasid, PNB may choose its remedy against them elsewhere.HELD:Petition for certiorari granted, resolutions set aside.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015DOMONDON vs SANDIGANBAYANMarch 16, 200 Buena, J:SUMMARY: Several informations were filed against the petitioner and several others connected with a violation of the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019. Petitioner filed a motion for consolidation and reconsideration of an order of the Ombudsman including him in the information for Crim Case 20574, which was denied by the Ombudsman.DOCTRINE: Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the fiscal or Ombudsman in their investigatory and prosecutory power to determine probable cause, unless there is a finding of grave abuse of discretion.FACTS:This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a writ of prelim injunction seeking to set aside the order of the Office of the Special Prosecutor/ Ombudsman. There were 4 separate informations filed against petitioner and several others. Another information (Crim Case 20574) was filed against petitioner due to the discovery of a chain of irregularities within the Philippine National Police. Petitioner was included on account of his approval for the Chief, PNP, as the Director of the Office of the Directorate for Comptrollership of the release of Advice of Allotment in the amounts Php 5M and Php 15M. Petitioner filed a motion for consolidation before the Sandiganbayan (SB). The SB issued an order ordering the prosecution to demonstrate probable complicity of the accused in the transaction described in the information, resulting in the violation of the Anti-Graft Law under sec 3 (e) of RA 3019, with the second order deferring action on the motion to consolidate, pending the compliance with the first order. An order by Special Prosecution Officer III recommended the amendment of the information to exclude 6 of the accused, not including petitioner, and prosecution for the remaining accused continue. A motion for reconsideration of this order was filed by petitioner, which is pending in the Office of the Ombudsman. Special Prosecutor I of the Ombudsman issued an order recommending the modification of the first order to exclude petitioner from the information and deny the motion for consolidation. This was disapproved by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, on the recommendation of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa. Arraignment was proposed to be set, and amended information was admitted and excluded some of the accused but included petitioner for prosecution.ISSUES:1.WON there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of Villa and Desierto on denying the motion for reconsideration

2. WON the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for consolidationRATIO:1. HELD, No. The general rule is that courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the fiscal or Ombudsman to determine the adequacy of the averments of the offense charged. He can dismiss the complaint if it is insufficient in form or substance, or he finds no ground to continue with it, or he may proceed with the investigation if the complaint is in due and proper form. This does not preclude the courts from reviewing the Ombudsman if there is an abuse of discretion. The court finds that there is none in this case. Respondents in this case found sufficient probable cause to include petitioner in the indictment.2. HELD, No. Once the case has been filed with the Sandiganbayan, it has the full control of the case so much that the informations may not be dismissed or consolidated with other pending cases, without the approval of said court, therefore justifying the denial.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015Furthermore, the Supreme Court said that it cannot determine whether the complicity and participation of the petitioner in the several cases are the same since the present petition only concerns Crim Case 20574, and the court will not interfere with the Ombudsmans exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners recourse should be with the Sandiganbayan where the cases are already pending.The Petition is DISMISSED.PINOTE v. AYCODecember 13, 2005 Carpio-Morales, J.SUMMARY: Judge Ayco allowed the presentation of evidence of the defense in a criminal case without the presence of the state prosecutor, Ringcar Pinote, who filed the present case.DOCTRINE: As a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the control and direction of the public prosecutor. This transgression could not be rectified by subsequently giving the prsecution a chance to cross-examine the witnesses.FACTS:A criminal case entitled People v. Vice Mayor Salvador Ramos, et. al. was filed in the sala of Judge Roberto L. Ayco of Branch 26, RTC of South Cotabato. State Prosecutor Pinote who was the prosecutor in the said case was absent for two days in the proceedings of the case due to medical treatments he underwent. He was not able to inform the court beforehand of his inability to attend the said hearings.While he was absent, Judge Ayco allowed the presentation of evidence by the defense consisting of testimonies of two witnesses. On the subsequent hearings, Pinote refused to cross-examine the witnesses, maintaining that the proceedings conducted in his absence were void. Pinote filed a manifestation and prayed that the testimonies be striken off the record and that he should not be coerced to cross-examine. Judge Ayco deemed waived the right of the prosecutor to conduct cross-examination on the two witnesses.Pinote filed an administrative complaint against Ayco for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and Serious Misconduct. By way of counter-complaint, Ayco charged Pinote with Contempt of Court and Grace Misconduct and/or Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of the Bar as an Officer of the Court.The OCA recommended that Ayce be reprimanded with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.ISSUE: WON a judge can allow the presentation of evidence in the absence of the prosecutorHELD and RATIO:No. As a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the control and direction of the public prosecutor. Rule 110, Sec. 5 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states that All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor.Judge Ayco clearly transgressed the Rule when he allowed the presentation of evidence in the absence of the prosecutor. This could not be rectified by subsequently giving the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the witnesses.Ayco is ordered to pay P5,000 with warning.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015Tan, Jr. v. Gallardo October 5, 1976Antonio, J.SUMMARY: Private prosecutors take a contrary position to Solicitor Generals stand. The Court held that private prosecutors intervention in a criminal case is subject to the control of the SolGen, in fact, their role in this particular case to cooperate with the SolGen, hence, they cannot take a position contratry to his.DOCTRINE: In a criminal case, the public prosecutor represents the Republic, due to this interest, the prosecution is placed under his direction, control and responsibility. The private prosecutor, on the other hand, represents the offended party with respect to the civil action for recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense, his interverntion is always subject to the control and direction of the prosecuting official.FACTS:Judge Ayco released orders pertaining to a criminal case. The petitioners seek to annul such orders and to compel the judge to desist from the case. The SolGen submitted his comment to the petition and recommended the remand of the case to a trial court for the decision of another judge because it found that Judge Aycos decisions are not free from bias.The private prosecutors submitted their comment and objected to the remand of the case, insisting that they have the right to take a postion in contravention to that of the SolGens.ISSUE: WON the private prosecutors have the right to intervene independently of the Solicitor General and to adopt a stand inconsistent with that of the latter in the present proceedings.RATIO:Public Prosecutor - Sec. 1 of P.D. 478 Defining the Powers and Functions of the Office of the Solicitor General enumerates the powers and functions of the SolGen. In a criminal case, the public prosecutor represents the Republic, due to this interest, the prosecution is placed under his direction, control and responsibility.Private Prosecutor - The private prosecutor, on the other hand, represents the offended party with respect to the civil action for recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense, his interverntion is always subject to the control and direction of the prosecuting official. Moreover, when the offended party waives his right to civil action or expressly waives his right to institute it, the private prosecutor loses the right to intervene. Also, where from the nature of the offense, or where the law defining and

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015punishing the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity, the offended party may not intervene in the prosecution of the offense. This limit in the role of privateprosecutors is found in Sec. 4 and 15, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. Hence, private prosecutors may intervene but they are not in control of the case.Case at Bar In addition to the aforementioned rules, the Court also found that the request for remand done by the SolGen is not without basis. The SolGen gave a report of instances where the judge had an improper interaction with the parties of the case.People v. LiggayuOctober 31, 1955 Labrador, J.SUMMARY: A complaint was filed by a member of the police force charging Liggayu for having killed one Teresita Young de Dyogi. Another complaint was filed which charged Liggayus companion Franco of the same crime. The fiscal, after conducting an investigation, filed a motion to dismiss the case against Franco, citing that it was Liggayu who was on the wheel when Teresita was ran over.DOCTRINE: All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The offended party may, as of right, intervene in the prosecution of a criminal action, but only when from the nature of the offense, he is entitled to indemnity and that he has not waived or expressly reserved the action. If the criminal action is dismissed by the court, on motion of the fiscal, on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the offended party cannot appeal from the order of dismissal.FACTS:This is an appeal of the offended parties from an order of dismissal of the case against the accused Roy Franco. The first complaint was filed by a member of the police force in the Justice of the Peace Court of Caloocan charging Benjamin Liggayu y Sion through Reckless Imprudence for running over and killing Teresita Young de Dyogi. Two weeks after, the husband of the deceased and their nine children filed another complaint, charging Roy Franco as well. It was alleged that, after Liggayu had run over Teresita, he stopped the car and told Franco to move the car forward. Franco did so negligently that Teresitas injury was aggravated. The justice of the peace of Caloocan remanded the case to the CFI for further proceedings. It was at the CFI where the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss. The motion stated that at the time the deceased was run over the accused Benjamin Liggayu was on the wheel.The court granted the motion. At the same time the motion to dismiss was filed, the fiscal filed an information accusing Liggayu alone. The offended parties appealed, alleging that:1. That they were not notified of the hearing conducted by the provincial fiscal or of the motion for dismissal, and2. That the court erred in not holding that a prima facie case exists against Roy Franco, and in dismissing the case against him.ISSUES:1. WON the offended party has the right to be heard at all stages of the case and can appeal from any decision denying that right.2. WON notification of the motion to dismiss was necessary.RATIO:No. The appellants first assignment of error is supported by the cases of Gonzales v. CFI of Bulacan and People v. Bataller. The cases show that an offended party has the right to be heard at all stages of the case and can appeal from any decision denying that right (Sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). However, the provision being referred to was not carried in the revised Rules of Court. The new rules contain the following provisions.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015Sec. 10 Who must prosecute criminal actions - all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. (Rule 106)Sec. 15. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. - Unless the offended party has waived the civil action or expressly reserved the right to institute it separately from the criminal action, and subject to the provisions of section 4 hereof, he may intervene, personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the offense.The right to appeal from an order of dismissal granted by the court on motion of the fiscal may now be challenged under the theory that the right of an offended party to intervene is subject to the fiscals right of control. To permit an offended party to appeal from such an order would be akin to giving said party as much right to the direction and control of a criminal proceeding as that of the fiscal. Under General Orders No. 58, the direction of the prosecution was subjected to the right of the person injured to appeal from any decision of the court denying a legal right. The fiscal was merely to direct the prosecution, while the direction is subject to the right of the offended party. However, under the new Rules of Court, the fiscal had both direction and control.No. It would have served o purpose and would be mere idle ceremony, as the fiscal has direct control. The decision of the fiscal with regard to the insufficiency against anoher accused is not appealable.Bernabe v. Bolinas, Jr.November 29, 1966 Justice BarreraSUMMARY: Wife of the deceased wanted the charge for the death of her husband changed from homicide to murder with aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle. The Provincial Fiscal and Assistant Provincial Fiscal refused to do so claiming that there was no treachery involved in the stabbing of the victim.DOCTRINE: A prosecuting officer is sworn, under his oath of office, not merely to file charges against an accused, but to file the corresponding information in accordance with the facts and/or evidence obtaining in the case.FACTS:Unanimous account of witnesses: The deceased Sedesio del Castillo, along with Fernando Castromayor and the accused Pedro del Castillo, Sr., after a drinking spree, stayed at a house of Tinong to seek shelter from the rain. At Tinongs house, Castromayor and Pedro, Sr. fought. They were separated by Sedesio who left with Castromayor and together reported the incident to the police. At about 9.30pm, while Sedesio and Castromayor were on their way home, a jeep headed in their direction causing Sedesio to shout a warning to his companions. He was hit by the jeep, from which Pedro, Sr. alighted and struck Sedesio on the head and then stabbed him twice in

2. WON there was abuse of discretion on the part of the fiscals when they refused to amend the information, considering the affidavits of the eyewitnesses.CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015the neck. Castromayor ran away. Pedro, Jr., upon realizing that they hit Sedesio, instead of Castromayor, brought the victim to a doctor. Nevertheless, Sedesio still died without receiving any medical treatment.Procedural facts: Based on the facts established above, the Chief of Police of Sara, Iloilo, filed a complaint for homicide through reckless imprudence against Pedro del Castillo, Sr. and was later amended to include Pedro del Castillo, Jr. The widow of Sedesio, Estelita Bernabe, requested the provincial fiscal to reinvestigate the case, claiming that the accused should be charged with murder. But the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor still maintained that the charge was merely homicide. Consequently, Bernabe filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to compel the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo to amend the information for the case. She claimed that the Provincial Fiscal and the Assistant Provincial Fiscal acted with grave abuse of discretion and neglected to perform an act which the law enjoined them to do so.The fiscals filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that there was no treachery involved in the killing of Sedesio so the crime only amounts to homicide. They also contended that mandamus does not lie as government prosecutors have the discretion to determine not only the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence establishing a prima facie case, but also the nature of the offense committed. The remedy of mandamus is a relief for official inaction. Since they already filed the information, they have performed their duty so no cause of action lies against them.The Court of First Instance granted the Motion to Dismiss for lack of legal basis. Subsequently, Bernabe appealed to the Supreme Court.ISSUES:1. WON there was abuse of discretion on the part of the fiscals when they refused to amend the information, considering the affidavits of the eyewitnesses.2. If there were such abuse of discretion, WON the fiscals can be compelled by mandamus to amend the information. RATIO:1. WON there was abuse of discretion on the part of the fiscals when they refused to amend the information, considering the affidavits of the eyewitnesses.Yes. Based on the testimony of the witnesses, there was treachery involved. Sedesio was already hit by the jeep and lying on the ground when he was hit in the head and stabbed by Pedro, Sr. He was helpless when he received the injuries that caused his death. Treachery exists when the aggressor has adopted a mode of attack intended to facilitate the commission of the crime without risk to himself. Even though Sedesio saw the jeep coming, it does not mean that he was prepared for the attack of the accused.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015Although the remedy of mandamus is a relief for official inaction, a prosecuting officer is sworn, under his oath of office, not merely to file charges against an accused, but to file the corresponding information in accordance with the facts and/or evidence obtaining in the case. The fiscals, based on eyewitness account, should have filed a case for murder. This makes the fiscals subject to the writ of mandamus.The order of the Court of First Instance is reversed. The fiscals are directed to amend the information to murder.VDA. DE BAGATUA, ET AL. VS. REVILLA AND LOMBOS (1958)Appeal from the order of the CFI of Rizal (Quezon City) Felix, J.Summary: City Attorney recommended that the complaint for estafa be dismissed for lack of merit so CFI accordingly dismissed it. Complainants appealed to SC through a petition for mandamus to compel City Attorneys to file the case of estafa against PangilinanDoctrine: the remedy is not that of mandamus but the filing with the proper authorities or court of criminal or administrative charges if the alleged offended parties believe that the former maliciously refrained from instituting actions for the punishment of violators of the law

Facts: Rodrigo Bagatua, acting for himself and on behalf of his sisters, accused Burgos L. Pangilinan of estafa before the City Attorney of Quezon City for having allegedly induced them to sign papers supposedly necessary for the subdivision of their lot, but one of which turned out to be a deed of sale.>>The lot (Lot 569 of Piedad Esate ~43,871sq.m.) was donated by their mother Beatriz Ramos, widow of Apolonio Bagatua Assistant City Attorney, acting for the City Attorney, conducted a preliminary investigation and recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. The complainants thus filed a petition for mandamus with the CFI of Quezon City against the City Attorney and the Assistant City Attorney seeking to compel the aforesaid officials to file the corresponding information against Burgos Pangilinan for estafa, contending that the respondents, in dismissing the complaint, committed a grave abuse of discretion. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, on the theory that as the duties of a fiscal are not ministerial but involve discretion, it cannot be controlled by mandamus unless there had been a grave abuse thereof. CFI sustained this motion to dismiss and held that there is no clear indication that respondents abused their discretion. From this order, petitioners appealed to SC.Issue: WON the City Attorney can be compelled to file an information through a petition for mandamus filed before the Supreme Court?

FACTS:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015Held: NO Section 28-(h) of Republic Act No. 537, known as the Revised Charter of Quezon City, prescribes that:(h) He (the City Attorney) shall cause to be investigated shall charges of crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances and have the necessary information or complaint prepared or made against the persons accused. He or any of his Assistants may conduct such investigations by taking oral evidence of reputable witnesses, and for this purpose may issue subpoena, summon witnesses to appear and testify under oath before him, . . .** City Attorneys are empowered to conduct preliminary investigation Section 4, Rule 106, Rules of Court: All criminal actions, either commenced by complaint or information, shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. From these legal mandates springs the principle that where the fiscal, after conducting a preliminary investigation is convinced that the evidence is insufficient to establish, at least prima facie, the guilt of the accused, he has the perfect authority to dismiss the same Of course, the power of the City Attorney or prosecuting fiscal in connection with the filing and prosecution of criminal charges in court is not altogether absolute; but the remedy is not that of mandamus but the filing with the proper authorities or court of criminal or administrative charges if the alleged offended parties believe that the former maliciously refrained from instituting actions for the punishment of violators of the law (Article 208, Revised Penal Code). A fiscals failure to give credence or weight to the testimony of witnesses or otherwise appreciate the evidence presented in a preliminary investigation, unless patently capricious or arbitrary, cannot be taken as an abuse of discretion, for he must have formed his impression after observing and evaluating the demeanor and conduct of a witness testifying before him.Order appealed AFFIRMED.CRESPO v. MOGULJune 30, 1987 Gancayco, J.SUMMARY: A Circuit Criminal Court Judge refused to grant a motion to dismiss (a criminal case) filed by a Provincial Fiscal upon instructions by the Secretary of Justice.DOCTRINE: Once a complaint or information is filed in Court, the acquittal/dismissal/conviction rests solely on the discretion of the Court. It is within the Courts discretion to deny a motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal or the Secretary of Justice. Even if he does not believe that there is a basis for prosecution, the fiscal or prosecutor still has the legal duty to continue with the presentation of evidence in order for the Court to arrive at an objective judgment of the case.

FACTS:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015Assistant Fiscal Proceso de Gala filed a case for estafa against Mario Crespo. When the case was set for arraignment, the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment because there was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice regarding the filing of the information for his case. The presiding judge Leodegario Mogul denied the accuseds motion.The accused filed a case for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction to compel the Mogul to delay the arraignment, and the CA released an order restraining the judge from proceeding with Crespos arraignment until the Secretary of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for review. The Undersecretary of Justice, resolving the accuseds petition for review, directed the fiscal to move for the immediate dismissal of the information filed against Crespo based on isufficiency of evidence, which the Provincial fiscal did. Judge Mogul denied this motion and set an arraignment date.Crespo filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or temporary restraining order in the CA. The CA issued a restraining order for Judge Mogul, but in a late decision, it dismissed the petition and lifted the restraining order. Crespo filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.ISSUE:1.WON a judge may refuse to grant a motion to dismiss filed by the Provincial Fiscal/Secretary of Justice and insist on the arraignment and trial on the

merits- YESRATIO:Criminal actions commenced either by complaint or by information are to be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal, and the institution of a criminal case depends upon his discretion. The decision of whether or not to pursue a criminal case based on the findings of a preliminary investigation is a decision made by the fiscal. This is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons. They have a legal duty to prosecute when they find that there is a prima facie case, and a legal duty not to prosecute when there is none. However, once a complaint or information is filed by the fiscal in Court, the disposition of the case (acquittal/dismissal/conviction) transfers to the sole discretion of the Court. If a fiscal should find it proper to reinvestigate, he shall ask permission from the Court. If the fiscal changes his mind about the existence of a prima facie case and files a motion to dismiss, it is within the Courts discretion to deny such motion. In such a case, even if the fiscal does not believe in the existence of a basis for prosecution, the fiscal or prosecutor still has the legal duty to continue with the presentation of evidence in order for the Court to arrive at an objective judgment of the case.STA. ROSA MINING CO. v. ZABALAAugust 31, 1987 BidinSUMMARY: A criminal information was filed with the Court of First Instance. Upon request of accused private respondents, the Secretary of Justice reviewed the case. The Secretary later reversed the findings of the case and directed prosecution to move for dismissal. Such motion was denied by the Court. Now, petitioner files for mandamus to compel Respondent Fiscal to continue prosecuting the criminal case.DOCTRINE: A fiscal has the power to institute a criminal action. However, once a case has already been filed, the fiscal loses power over the case and must continue prosecuting it, as his duty of the Government.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015 Petitioner filed a complaint for attempted theft of materials against private respondents, with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal. The case was assigned to an Assistant Fiscal, who, after conducting a preliminary investigation, recommended that an information for Attempted Theft be filed, on a finding of a prime facie case. The Provincial Fiscal, Ilustre, filed an information with the Court of First Instance, charging private respondents with Attempted Theft. Private respondents requested the Secretary of Justice for a review. The Secretary of Justice reversed the findings of the prima facie case and directed prosecution to move for dismissal. Ilustre filed a motion to dismiss, but the Court denied the motion. Respondent Fiscal Zabala became Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal. Zabala filed a second motion to dismiss, manifesting that he would not prosecute the case, and disauthorized any private prosecutor from appearing. Hence, this petition for mandamus compelling Zabala to continue prosecuting the criminal case.ISSUES: WON Respondent Fiscal may be compelled to continue prosecuting a criminal case YESRATIO:It is true that the institution of a criminal action lies at the sound discretion of the investigating fiscal. The institution of such case is his choice, subject to his judgment whether the evidence adduced has established the accuseds guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Further, when he decides not to institute a criminal action, he may not be compelled to do so.However, once the case has already been filed, a fiscal is not clothed with the power to dismiss it, as this power is vested solely in the court. In US v. Valencia, it was held that once the complaint has been presented and the trial has commenced, the court, and not the fiscal, has full control of it. It is discretionary on the court where the case is pending to grant or deny a motion to dismiss.In the case at bar, the court below denied the fiscals motion to dismiss. Now, the fiscal refuses to prosecute. The fiscal must proceed with his duty of presenting evidence for the court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to the culpability of the accused. The fiscal should not shirk from his responsibility, much less leave it in the hands of a private prosecutor. In the trial of criminal offenses, it is the duty of the fiscal to appear for the Government, as the offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State. If the fiscal is not convinced that a case exists, he cannot simply move for dismissal, then refuse to prosecute the same when the motion is denied. He cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. What the fiscal can do is to continue appearing for the Government, and turn over the presentation of evidence to another fiscal or to a private prosecutor. But when no other prosecutor is available, he should proceed with his duty to discharge his duty and present the evidence to the best of his ability, and let the court decide.The fact that the Secretary of Justice directed the fiscal to move for dismissal is no justification for the refusal of the fiscal to prosecute the case. In Mario Fl. Crespo v. Hon. Leodegario L. Mogul, it was actually held by the Court that the Secretary of Justice should refrain from entering a petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has already been in Court.BANAL v. TADEO,Jr.Dec. 11 1987Ponente Gutierrez, Jr.SUMMARY: Atty. Bustos was not allowed by the court to appear as private prosecutor in a criminal case for violation of BP 22 on grounds that such was a crime against public order and not against property. He filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel the court to allow him to appear in behalf of his client who was the injured party. The court said that his intervention in the case was allowed since not only the State but the petitioner too is entitled to relief. It could not have been the intention of BP 22 to leave the offended party defrauded by excluding the civil liability of the offended. Also, it will facilitate the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice eliminating the burden of having to file a separate civil case

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015DOCTRINE: A private prosecutor can intervene in the prosecution of a criminal case if the same felonious act or omission results in direct damage of injury to another, giving rise to civil liability.FACTS:15 separate informations for violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) were filed against Rosario Claudio. She was arraigned in 1986 where she pleaded not guilty and thereafter, the pre-trial was set on January 1987. Judge Tadeo, Jr replaced Judge Serquina, who was then presiding judge. The trial court issued an order, which rejected the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos to appear as private prosecutor because the charge was for violation of BP 22, which it stated did not provide for an civil liability or indemnity and was a crime not against property but public order.Thus, a petition for certiorari was filed to review the order of the trial court and for mandamus to allow Atty Bustos to appear as private prosecutor for the case.ISSUES:WON the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the appearance of the private prosecutorRATIO:Yes. The intervention of the private prosecutor in behalf of the offended party, Banal, should be permitted in the prosecution of this civil case.The basis of civil liability arising from crime is found in Art. 100 of the RPC,Every man criminally liable is also civilly liable. When a person commits a crime, he offends two entities- the state, and the individual whose person, right, honor or property was directly injured by the same punishable act or omission. One act or omission may produce both a crime and a tort.Civil liability to the offended party cannot be denied (Lozano v. Martinez). In the case at bar, not only the State but the petitioner too is entitled to relief as a member of the public, which the law seeks to prevent. She suffered with the State when the checks bounced. It also could not have been the intention of the framers of the constitution to leave the offended party defrauded and empty-handed by excluding civil liability of the offender. If she is given the only the remedy of having to file separate civil case, she may be unable to recover even the face value of the check, unjustly enriching the errant draw at the expense of the payee.The intervention is justified also for the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice mandated by Section 16 of the Bill of Rights. A separate civil case proves costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and cause further delay in the disposition of the case.PEREZ vs. HAGONOY RURAL BANK, INC., and CAMarch 9, 2000 DE LEON, JR.,J.SUMMARY: Petitioner as officer in charge, cashier and teller of Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. was charged with estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. Private respondent bank questions the ruling of the RTC judge in dismissing the criminal case by a petition for certiorari.DOCTRINE: The Solicitor General is the only one that may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the private offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015FACTS:Respondent Bank filed a complaint for Estafa against petitioner, the officer in charge, cashier and teller of Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc., together with other employees of the Bank. They made anomalous withdrawals from the bank by falsification of withdrawal slips and tampering with the subsidiary ledgers. The prosecutor initially found the petitioner had committed the crime prompting her to file a petition for review with the Sec. of Justice praying for the dismissal of the charges against her. While petition for review was pending the prosecutor filed an information for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents against petitioner and her co-accused. Sec. of Justice issued resolution ordering the prosecutor to order the dismissal of the case against the petitioner on the ground of insufficient evidence.Prosecutor subsequently filed a motion to dismiss case against petitioner that was granted by RTC judge. Respondent Bank assailed the dismissal which the CA granted thus this petition for certiorari. The petitioner questions the legal standing of the respondent to file the petition for certiorari considering that this is a criminal case and the proper party must be the state represented by the Solicitor General.ISSUES:1.WON the private respondent, as private complainant, in a criminal case has the legal personality to question the dismissal by the trial judge of the

criminal charges against herein petitioner upon the motion filed by the prosecutorRATIO:The private respondent, as private complainant, had legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case against the petitioner on the ground that the order of dismissal was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.In the case of Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals, the court held that:"In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, the complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in (the) name of the said complainant."Thus, while it is only the Solicitor General that may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the private offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law.CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015JALANDONI v. DRILONMarch 2, 2000 Buena, J.SUMMARY: Private respondent Ledesma filed an administrative complaint against petitioner for violation of the RPC and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act with the PCGG. A full-page advertisement was subsequently caused to be published by private respondents in daily newspapers. An open letter to OPMC stockholders was also issued private respondent. Both articles were said to impute illegal and unauthorized acts to petitioner Jalandoni, relative to the sale of OPMC shares. Because of this, two separate complaints for the crime of libel were filed by petitioner Jalandoni against private respondents. After the filing of

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015affidavits, the Asst. Prosecutor issued a Memorandum, approved by the Provincial Prosecutor, and two separate informations for the complaints were filed in two different branches of the Makati RTC. After the respondents appeal, Secretary Drilon issued a DOJ Resolution ordering withdrawal of the informations.DOCTRINE: It is a well-settled rule that the Secretary of Justice has the power to review resolutions and decisions of the city or provincial prosecutor or the Chief State prosecutor upon petition by a proper party. The Revised Administrative Code gives the Secretary of Justice the power of direct control and supervision over said prosecutors. Given this, he may then affirm, nullify, modify or reverse their rulings as he may see fit.FACTS:On July 1992, private respondent Jaime Ledesma filed an administrative complaint for violation of the RPC and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against petitioner Mario Jalandoni with the PCGG. Two days after, news articles about such appeared in various newspapers. Also, a full-page advertisement was caused to be published by private respondents Coyiuto, Jr., Ledesma, Garcia, Barcelon, Ozaeta, and Dyhongpo in 5 major daily newspapers.Exactly a year after the publication, petitioner Jalandoni filed a complaint (I.S. No. 93-6228) for the crime of libel before the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal against private respondents who were officials of Oriental Petroleum & Minerals Corporation (OPMC). The complaint stemmed from the full-page advertisement a year earlier, which contained allegations naming Jalandoni, who was then a PCGG Commissioner, of having committed illegal and unauthorized acts constituting graft and corruption, relative to the sale of OPMC shares held by Piedras Petroleum to the RCBC-Yuchenco Group.6 days after the filing of the first libel complaint, Jalandoni filed another complaint for libel (I.S. No. 93-6422) before the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal against then OPMC Chairman and President Coyiuto, Jr. This complaint was caused by Coyiuto, Jr.s August 1992 open letter addressed to the OPMC stockholders.After the affidavits and counter-affidavits were filed, 3rd Assistant Prosecutor Bautista issued a Memorandum in I.S. No. 93-6228, approved by Rizal Provincial Prosecutor Castro, recommending the indictment of private respondents. An information for the crime of libel was filed with the Makati RTC. I.S. No. 93-6422 underwent the same process but the information for the crime of libel was filed with a different branch in the Makati RTC.All private respondents appealed to then Secretary of Justice, Franklin M. Drilon. On March 1994, Secretary Drilon issued the questioned DOJ Resolution No. 211, Series of 1994, which set aside the two questioned resolutions (info for the 2 libel cases?), dismissed the 2 complaints, and ordered the immediate withdrawal of the two Informations. A motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied in a letter-order.ISSUES:1. WON Secretary Drilons DOJ Resolution is valid (WON the Secretary of Justice has the power to review resolutions or decisions of city or provincial prosecutors)2. *WON articles in question were libelous3. *WON a writ of certiorari must be issuedRATIO:1. YES. It is a well-settled rule that the Secretary of Justice has the power to review resolutions and decisions of the city or provincial prosecutor or the Chief State prosecutor upon petition by a proper party. The Revised Administrative Code gives the Secretary of Justice the power of direct control and supervision over said prosecutors. Given this, he may then affirm, nullify, modify or reverse their rulings as he may see fit.2. NO. The Court took the liberty to review the libellous articles complained of and did not find them to be such. It cited Vasquez vs. CA and said that in libel cases against public officials, for liability to arise, the alleged defamatory statement must relate to official conduct, even if the defamatory statement

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015is false, unless the public official concerned proves the existence of actual malice in the making of the statement. In this case, the petitioner failed to prove actual malice. Hence, the statements made in the articles in question are protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.3. NO. A special civil action for certiorari will prosper only when a grave abuse of discretion is manifested. For an abuse to be grave, the power must be exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility (Republic v. Villarama, Jr.) Petitioner failed to prove the existence of the abuse.Cerezo v. PeopleJune 1, 2011 Nachura, J:SUMMARY: Complaint for libel was filed by Cerezo. QC Prosecution Office filed by the corresponding information. Defendants filed a motion to reconsider the prosecutors evidence. The prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the information so the RTC withdrew it. Upon Cerezos Motion and upon review by the DOJ, the RTC revived the case.DOCTRINE: Once the case is filed in court, the Court must make its own determination of whether to proceed with the case. It must not solely rely on the prosecutors motion or orders.FACTS:Read the table from L-R, Top to bottom. I put it in a table to you can see how the case is passed from one entity to another.Cerezo (complainant)Respondents in Cerezos complaintQC Prosecution Office (OP- QC)RTCSecretary of Justice (DOJ)

Filed complaint for libelFiled corresponding information (before RTC)

Filed Motion forReconsideration and/or Motion to Re-evaluate Prosecutions Evidence (filed at OP-QC)Recommended withdrawal of information it filed earlierFiled Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information (before RTC)

Entered a plea of not guilty in the arraignmentOrdered the criminal case dismissed:Prosecutor was vested with power to reconsider his own resolution. If the case is filed in court already, he can interfere with it subject to the approval of the Court

Filed a Motion forReconsideration of the RTCs order.His argument: OP-QCsReversed and set aside OP-QCs motion to dismiss and withdraw information.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015resolution has not yet attained finality because it was the subject of a Petition for Review before DOJ.Ordered OP-QC to refile the earlier information for libel

Granted Cerezos Motion for

Reconsideration, reviving the libel case, conformably with the DOJs resolution.

Order of dismissal and withdrawal of information was not yet final because of the timely filing of Cerezos

Motion for Reconsideration

CA: RTC abused its discretion in reviving the case. There was double jeopardy. The information is valid and the termination of the case was not expressly consented to by the defendants. Hence, it cannot be revived. DOJ improperly took cognizance of the case.ISSUE2. WON the there was valid termination of the case as to usher the impregnable wall of double jeopardy - NO (this is how the SC phrased the issue)RATIO:1.WON the there was valid termination of the case as to usher the impregnable wall of double jeopardy - NO Order of dismissal and withdrawal of

information was not yet final because of the timely filing of Cerezos Motion for Reconsideration Once a case is filed in Court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. The trial court should not rely solely on the findings of the public prosecutor. It is the courts duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing the motion. In initially dismissing the case, RTC judge failed to make his own determination of W/N there was prima facie case to hold respondents for trial. He failed to make an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case. RTC judge blindly relied on the recommendation of the prosecutor when he shouldve been more circumspect and judicious especially when the prosecution appeared to be uncertain and undecided. In ordering the revival of the case, the above-mentioned still holds true. He failed to make a separate evaluation and merely awaited the DOJs resolution. By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor, the trial court abdicated its judicial power. It acted with grave abuse of discretion and violated Cerezos right to due process. Their orders are void and had no legal standing.DECISIONREMAND the case to RTC so that it can rule on the merits of the case

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015People v. GuevarraDecember 4, 1989 Padilla, J.SUMMARY: Armed men robbed the Cruz family. Priscilla, the wife of Luisito Cruz, was forcibly boarded onto her own care and driven away. Priscilla was told that she would be held for ransom but the men changed their minds and left her. Luisito informed the police; subsequently, Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak was investigated and detained. Affirmed with modification Bustamante sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua.DOCTRINE: Amendment of Information to include a defendant cannot be without basis. Examples: previously-issued subpoenas, return of service for subpoenas as answered by jail warden, order of other courts, letters of transmittal of case records.FACTS: Armed men entered the house of the spouses Cruz, in the evening of April 8, 1980. They robbed the spouses of P3,000 and pieces of jewelry. The men demanded Luisito Cruz to give the key to his car, which he did, giving it to one of the armed men. Priscilla, Luisitos wife, was forcibly boarded onto her own car by the men. They drove off. Priscilla was told that they were going to hold her for a P50,000 ransom but they changed their mind. That same evening, Luisito reported the robbery to the police. Vergel Bustamante was investigated and detained, and later identified by Priscilla Cruz to be one of her kidnappers. An Amended Information charged Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak together with other persons such as Roming Longhair, Boy Tae, and Boy Pogi. Separate trials were conducted for Bustamante and one of his co-accused, as the others could not be served subpoenas or were already reported dead. Bustamantes co-accused was acquitted, while Bustamante himself was found guilty by the RTC Nueva Ecija. Bustamante appealed.ISSUES:3. WON the amendment of the information to include (as party defendant) Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak was an error.4. WON a reinvestigation was conducted.5. WON the testimonies of the witnesses are credible.6. WON the Defendant-Appellant can be convicted of Kidnapping for the Purpose of Extorting a Ransom.RATIO:1. The amendment of the information to include Bustamante (alias Dan Saksak):Defendant-Appellant: There is a lack of proof that Bustamante and Dan Saksak are one and the same person.SC: There was basis. The records of the case show that:1. A subpoena issued by a Municipal Court of Nueva Ecija was directed to a Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak, for two different criminal cases2. A Return of Service of one subpoena for the previously-mentioned criminal cases bore the statement of a Jail Warden (Manila City Jail) that Vergel Bustamante @ Dan Saksak was not in the list of present inmates.3. The order of the Municipal Court dated September 25, 1980, found a prima facie case against, among others, one Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak. The accused in that case filed a written waiver of their rights to present evidence.4. The letter of transmittal of the case records to the RTC NE stated that Vegel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak was detained at the Manila City Jail.

DOCTRINE: In the crime of robbery, among others, the property taken must be that of another, and an indictment or complaint for such offense must name the owner. A variance in this respect between the indictment (allegation in the complaint) and the proof (evidence) will be fatal and the accused cannot be convicted.CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015Also, such an issue cannot be raised for the first time upon appeal. It should have been raised before the trial court via a Motion to Quash the Information. Defendant-Appellants counsel told the court he was going to file a Motion to Quash the Information but did not do so.2. The reinvestigation:Defendant-Appellant: There was no reinvestigation committed to justify the filing of an amended information, and that the counsel in the RTC did not know of any investigation.SC: The reinvestigation was certified by the Fiscal. The counsel in the RTC was only appointed after the arraignment.3. The credibility of the testimonies:Defendant-Appellant: Improbable, contradictory, full of inconsistencies, and his own extra-judicial confession given during custodial investigationSC: These minor details cannot destroy the substance of the testimonies. The evidence presented was sufficient to support the verdict even without the confession.4. The conviction of Kidnapping for the Purpose of Extorting a Ransom:SC: DA cannot be convicted of such crime. Priscilla merely testified that she heard one of the robbers say she would be held for ransom. But in the instant case, there is no element of demand. No ransom note was presented, nor was there a showing of demand for money upon the Cruz family. The absence of demand for ransom negates the allegation of kidnapping for ransom.US V. LAHOYLAHOY & MADANLOGJuly 15, 1918 Street, J.SUMMARY: Defendants were convicted in the CFI of robbery with homicide, however, the complaint charges that the property taken was Roman Escribas, while the proof shows that they were Juanas. The SC acquitted the defendants of the crime of robbery but convicted them of homicide of all four victims.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015FACTS:While the Juana and her two grandchildren (Miguela, 14 years old and Bartolome, 9 years old) were sleeping, the two accused entered the house and demanded money. Juana gave them P100. They were further required to leave the house and go to the beach, where the accused again demanded money, but Juana was not able to comply. Lahoyloy then struck her with a bolo just below her breast, killing her instantly. The children ran away instantly and remained hidden during the night in the bushes. The next morning they made their way back to the house of their grandmother where they found each other. When they went to the house of their parents, they learned that their grandmothers husband, Francisco, and their parents were also killed and buried by the accused, with the help of Eugenio Tenedero, son-in-law of Lahoylahoy. They were threatened with death if they made a complaint. The stayed for some time with their sister, the wife of Madanlog, then taken to the home of another sister, Dionisia Estriba, to whom they revealed the facts and who filed the complaint. During the examination, Lahoyloy confessed that the four deceased were killed by Madanlog with his assistance.At the trial, the children gave a very consistent account of the robbery and murder of their grandmother. The boy did not remember whether Madanlog was present when she was killed, but Miguela said that he was. Eugenio Tenedero testified that the defendants killed the four deceased, and in the early morning, required him to help them bury the dead. A day or two after the crime, Madanlog went to the house of Francisco and Juana and carried away some palay, some dawa, three pigs and a trunk containing wearing apparel, but this act should not be considered as a continuation of the robbery but rather as a spoliation of the estate of a deceased person.The CFI found the defendants guilty of robbery with multiple homicide and sentenced them to death. The SC found the evidence sufficient to find the defendants guilty. However, a question arose with regard to the proof as to the ownership of the property which was taken by the accused. According to the proof, the person robbed was Juana, while the complaint charges that the property taken belonged to Roman Estriba.ISSUE:

RATIO: Yes. Defendants acquitted of the crime of robbery, but convicted of four counts of homicide1. WON the variance between the complaint and the proof with regard to the ownership of the stolen property is a fatal error in the complaint.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015According to Sec. 6(5) of General Orders No. 58, a complaint or information shall show... the names of the persons against whom, or against whose property, the offense was committed, if known. If his name cannot be ascertained, it may be alleged that it is unknown. This requirement is necessary where the name of the injured party is necessary as a matter of essential description of the crime charged, as in the case at bar. In crimes against property, ownership must be alleged as a matter essential to the proper description of the offense. Furthermore, according to Clarks Criminal Procedure: in the crime of robbery, among others, the property taken must be that of another, and an indictment for such offense must name the owner; and a variance in this respect between the indictment and the proof will be fatal. The complaint in this case does not sufficiently describe the act of robbery or the subject of the robbery because the owner of the property was not established. The only way money, which has been the subject of a robbery, can be described or identified in a complaint is by connecting it with the individual who was robbed as its owner or possessor. When the offense has been so identified in the complaint, the proof must correspond upon this point with the allegation, or there can be no conviction. The complaint is not defective in form because the charge is clear, direct and unambiguous, but because of the lack of conformity between the allegation and the proof respecting the ownership of the property, it is impossible to convict the two accused of the crime of robbery, and therefore they cannot be convicted of the complex crime of robbery with homicide.They can only be convicted of homicide of the four victims(not murder because the record does not show how they were executed). Pedro Lahoylahoy is sentenced to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day, reclusion temporal for each homicide, and Marcos Madanlog to 20 years, reclusion temporal for each; both of them not to exceed 40 years, in view of Rule 2, Art. 88 of the Penal Code on maximum duration.People vs. PurisimaNov. 20, 1978 Muoz-PalmaSUMMARY: Petitioners did not allege in the informations that they filed all the elements constituting the crime of illegal possession of deadly weapons punished under PD9 paragraph 3.DOCTRINE: The Information must allege all the facts(elements) which constitute the offense for such information to constitute a sufficiently valid charge.FACTS: Petitioners charged 3 accused persons with illegal possession of deadly weapons under P.D. 9. Two were tried in the Court of First Instance of Manila and one in the Court of First Instance of Samar. The 3 judges in their respective cases issued an order to quash upon filing by the respective accused. Hence, this case was filed in the Supreme Court. All 3 of the informations filed in the respective courts only alleged that the accused carried outside of their respective residences, a blade, ice pick and socyatan respectively not being used as a tool or implement necessary to earn his livelihood nor being used in connection therewith. All 3 judges reasoned out that the informations did not allege one essential element of the offense charged which is that the carrying outside of the accused's residence of a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the occasion of, connected with or

RATIO:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015related to subversion, insurrection, or rebellion, organized lawlessness or public disorder. Petitioners now argue that such alleged element is only part of the whereas clause or preamble of PD 9 and thus not an element of such offense and that the act punished is mala prohibitum.ISSUES:1. WON the Informations filed by the People(represented by the Sol-Gen, fiscal of manila and fiscal of samar) sufficient in form and substance to constitute the offense of "illegal possession of deadly weapon" penalized under Presidential Decree No. 9RATIO: The Constitution provides for the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused. The Rules of Court requires that for an information to be sufficient, it must state the designation of the offense by the statute, and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The Supreme Court holds that PD 9 has 2 elements. (1) The carrying outside one's residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood; and (2) that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder. There are conflicting views on the interpretation of PD9 on whether the acts mentioned therein are punishable irrespective of the intent of the accused. In such case, there is ambiguity which can be resolved by looking into the spirit of the law. Such spirit can be found by looking at the preamble which embodies the context of why the law was enacted. Thus, the 2nd element is within the spirit of PD9 and needs to be alleged in the information. The two elements of PD9 paragraph3 must be alleged in the Information in order that the latter may constitute a sufficiently valid charge. The sufficiency of an information is determined solely by the facts alleged therein. If the facts are incomplete and do not convey the elements of the crime, the quashing of the accusation is in order.PEOPLE V. FERNANDEZ Date of the DecisionPonenteSUMMARY: Frederico Conrado and Melquiades Fernandez were sentenced to suffer two death penalties for the rape of Rebecca Soriano. Both appealed the decision, alleging that the lower court erred in convicting them for the two crimes of rape. During the pendency of the appeal, Fernandez withdrew his appeal. Conrado alleges that the trial court erred in allowing two offenses to be charged under a single information, contrary to Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.DOCTRINE: There should only one offense charged in a single information. If multiple offenses were charged, this would be a ground for a motion to quash the complaint. Failure to object constitutes a waiver.FACTS: Soriano was the househelper of Teofilo Malong. On January 13, 1982, after taking a bath, Conrado and Fernandez entered the bathroom and tied a pice of cloth around her neck. They then took turns sexually abusing her. After the deed was done, Fernandez got a mud and put it in her vagina. When the two accused left, Soriano reported the incident to Amelita Malong. Amelita testified that she saw Soriano naked with a piece of cloth tied around her neck and mud on her lower private area. They then reported the incident to Amelita's father Teofilo. They then immediately brought Soriano to the police station, where she was physically examined. The two accused raised the defense of alibi.ISSUES: Enumerate the pertinent issues. Number format1.Does the allegation of two offenses in a single information constitute an error?

2. Was the CFI correctr in imposing two penalties?

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B20151. Under Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, there should only be one offense charged in a criminal complaint or information. In the case of duplicity of charges made in a single information, the accused should make a motion to quash the complaint. The failure of Conrado to do so constitutes a waiver. Since there has already been a conviction made by the trial court, it is already too late to raise the issue. Conrado also cannot claim that he was denied the information that he was to be tried for two separate crimes of rape, since the complaint made was in ordinary and concise languiage.2. In multiple rape, each defendant is responsible not only for the rape personally committed by him, but also for the rape committed by others because each of them cooperated in the commission of the crime.MATILDE v. JABSONDecember 29, 1975 Antonio, J.SUMMARY: While the preamble of the information contained in relation to PD 330, its body did not contain the factual allegations which would qualify the theft as an offense under PD 330. Such failure to make the allegations falls short of the requirement of the constitutional guarantee that the accused be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation. Absent such allegations, the PD 330 penalties cannot be validly imposed.DOCTRINE: The body of the information should contain the factual allegations that would qualify the offense. In relation to PD 330 is not enough.FACTS:Matilde [with several others] was initially charged in 3 informations with the crime of qualified theft, in relation to PD 133. [Said PD 133 imposes heavier penalties for the theft by workers and laborers of any material, spare part, product, or article that he is working on, using or producing.] The products stolen were boxes of insecticide. The initial charges contained allegations of grave abuse of confidence. To these charges, Matilde initially entered a plea of not guilty.After two amendments, however, said phrase was deleted from the informations, thereby changing the charges from qualified to simple theft. Also, there while the accused were identified as laborers of the Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises, there was no allegation that they were working on, using or producing the stolen products. Matilde then entered a guilty plea.Judgment was therefore rendered, but it imposed penalties according to PD 133 (i.e. 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor). Matilde filed an MR contending that the elements of the offense defined by PD 133 are not alleged in the body of the informations. It was denied.ISSUES:7. WON on the basis of the averments in the informations, the PD 133 penalties were validly imposed.8. What should be the penalty?RATIO:1. NO. Giving substance to the constitutional guarantee that the accused be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him, Section 8 of Rule 110 requires that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting an offense be stated in an ordinary and concise language. This is so that (a) a person of common understanding is able to know what offense is intended to be charged, and (b) the court will be able to pronounce the proper judgment. The informations in this case, while alleging that the accused were laborers, did not allege that they were working on, using or producing the stolen products. Such allegation is essential to qualify the offense to that of PD 133. True, the preamble of the informations state that the charges were in relation to PD 133. This, however, falls short of what is required by the constitution.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B20152. The proper penalty, prescribed by Article 309, RPC, mitigated by the guilty plea, is 6 months and 1 day to 1 year 8 months and 20 days.Balitaan v. Court of First Instance of Batangas30 July 1982 Justice GuerreroSummary: Accused was charge with the crime of estafa through misappropriation. Accused moved to strike out the complaining witnesss testimony because it was at variance with the allegation in the Information.Doctrine: Every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be stated must be determined by reference to the definition and essentials of the specific crimes.Facts: Counsel for the plaintiff (Balitaan) filed an Information charging respondent Rita de los Reyes of the crime of estafa. It was alleged that defendant failed to account for and deliver the amount of 127.58 to the plaintiff. This sum is in payment of work done on baby dresses by Balitaan. Furthermore, the Information stated that it was committed with unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence.During the testimony of plaintiff, the defense presented a motion to strike out all the testimonies of the witness as far as Exhibit A was concerned (consisted of three checks and a voucher) because there said testimony was at variance in the information and there is no allegation in the information regarding these checks and cash voucher. The Information only showed the sum of 127.58 that was received by the defendant. The objection of the counsel of defendant was overruled.Consequently, the defendant instituted against Balitaan an action for the annulment of the orders of the municipal court, overruling the objections of the defendant to the testimony of complaining witness on the grounds of immateriality and variance with the Information. The court in this case, favored the defendant.From this decision, plaintiff Balitaan filed a petition for review.Issues1. W/N there is a variance between the allegation in the Information for estafa and the proof established by the petitioners testimony2. W/N the testimonies of the complaining witness prove the same or tend to prove estafa that is different from the one alleged in the Information (Information alleges estafa under par 1(b) of Art. 315)Ratio1. None, there is no variance. The three checks and voucher need not be alleged in the Information. They did not vary the allegation in the Information that respondent Rita de los Reyes misappropriated the amount of 127.58. Proof of the checks was a material evidence of fact that respondent misappropriated the amount which was a part of the total sum of the checks.Every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the Information. This is to enable the accused to prepare his defense. As a general rule, matters of evidence need not be averred.All that is required is that the charge be set forth with particularity as will indicate the offense which the accused was alleged to have committed.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B20153. The testimony tends to prove what is alleged in the Information. Presentation of proof of deceit in a prosecution for estafa under par. 1(b) isallowed. Abuse of confidence and deceit may co-exist. The questioned testimony eliciting the fact that the accused falsely represented theamount of 127.58 is not at variance with the allegations in the Information. The presence of deceit did not change the theory of prosecution that estafa with abuse of confidence was committed.PEOPLE V CALAYCAJanuary 20, 1999 Martinez, J.SUMMARY: A sworn complaint was filed by Neddy Calayca against his father, Artemio Calayca, for rape in the MCTC of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. The MCTC Judge found sufficient ground for prosecution and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor had the same findings. Subsequently, an information was filed with the RTC accusing Artemio Calayca of RAPE. Artemio Calayca was found guilty by the RTC for QUALIFIED RAPE (victim was a minor + accused was the father) and was sentenced to death.DOCTRINE: The 7 circumstances that raises the penalty of rape to death are qualifying circumstances, which must be alleged in the Information to afford the accused the right to be informed of the charges against him and the right to due process. The failure to allege all the qualifying circumstances is fatal but if the circumstance is proved, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance.FACTS:Accused raped her daughter several times when the latter was only 7 years old up to the time when she reached 15 years of age. One night, her father came to her room with a bolo and threatened to hurt her if she would